Discussion: Changes to Task/Strike Force Missions

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because this change has no impact on the teaming aspect of Task Forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

The teaming aspect is the whole POINT of the change - see below.

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact remains, what you are talking about is another issue entirely removed from this change & should be addressed in its own thread... in the Suggestion Forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is at the very CORE of this change. As the Devs themselves spelled out in post one:

' We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.'

Get it? They want to maintain the requirement for a group. People were doing large swathes of the TFs without groups. They don't want them to do that any more.

They apparently think that a randomly chosen Pool C recipe is a 'good reward' for obliging a whole group to go through the whole TF start to finish.

My contention is that it's NOT a 'good reward', and their logic is thus radically flawed. They've provided the change, and their reasons for it; I'm pointing out the flaw in their reasoning. So, your assertion that this belongs on the Suggestions Forum is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* You missed My point.

The NPCS have & will continue to state: "You need X Number of People on your team to form the Task Force"

Anything greater than "X" value... Good for you & you may begin the TF

Anything less than "X" value... Sorry, but the NPC will NOT allow you to form the TaskForce


All this change does is ensure that you comply with what the NPC states, has stated for years, and will continue to state.


*EDIT* What you are saying is that what hte NPC states as the value for "X" should be altered... to which I already said that in many cases I agree with you.

---

Do respec trials fall under the same change, where they still spawn for min amount of people required to start?

---

/gignore @username is the best feature of this game. It's also probably the least used feature.
Can't get enough Hazy? /chanjoin robo's lounge today!

[ QUOTE ]
All this change does is ensure that you comply with what the NPC states, has stated for years, and will continue to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

In real terms, what this change does is introduce a cartload more obligatory work in the hope that you will keep a team of a certain size in order to tackle it.

Increased obligatory work for a mere CHANCE of adequate compensation = very very bad.

---

To the OP:

I have a general issue any time the power is put in one player's hands to basically make life difficult on other players. It's bad enough some powers can be used in antisocial ways (see: knockback, confuse) unintentionally or intentionally.

But now, the fate of your team rests in a single person's hands, more or less. As if it isn't NORMALLY bad enough to lose a tank or a healer, now you'll be spawning groups of mobs with an 'invisible anchor' thanks to the fact they ditched out.

What's more, not everyone has perfect reliability. What this does is discourage people that do not have 100% ability to commit to a TF no matter how long it takes to come. And if you have an internet connection that isn't completely stable, you might as well not even try. All this will do is breed bad blood between players over irrevocably failed TFs that fail because someone has to drop, or loses connection.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Don't design a game for the powerplayers, that's usually the point in any MMO when things go to hell in a handbasket: design them for casual players and if people level faster than you'd like them to or make more inf than you want them to, let it go, because you're damaging the play experience of your main market if you go off chasing powerlevellers and inf farmers and those changes hurt the experience of a casual, typical gamer who suddenly can't stealth missions anymore, or gets inexplicably zero XP for killing a portal, or is screwed the moment someone drops TF.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Friends and I tried to run the STF on Victory. We were short two players. I had to literally ask/beg every single 45+ person on the server before I could even find those two. And this was prime time.


[/ QUOTE ]

The States TF has always had a minimum start number of 8. If your team of 6 was going to have problems with regular mobs spawning for 8. Then I submit that you were going to have real problems agianst the AVs in there.

I have been on this TF when we were done in an 1-2 hours.


So this just proves that at that particular time not many people on Victory were interested in running the States TF.



~MR

[/ QUOTE ]
*watches the point of that part of my post fly over your head*

That's not what that was regarding. I've had similar problems with other TFs on small pop servers. It's very hard to find people. The fact that you can no longer get people to fill in those last few slots on Manticore or Shard TFs and then just drop doesn't help at all.

As said multiple times in this thread... there should have been some fundamental changes to TFs before this was put in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah,

Useing the STF as an example to illustrate your point was a bad choice.

Useing the Doc Q. TF would have been better. I agree they need to lower the minimum number of players that is required to start most TFs, to 4. I stated so earlier in this thread. I also PMed Positron suggesting the same, he hasn't read it yet.

This would give more leeway to finish up those TFs if they suffer from some player attrition.




~MR

---

AE Arc: 305214 Blood Diamonds (Villainous)


Unleashed/Unchained/B.O.S.S.

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is at the very CORE of this change. As the Devs themselves spelled out in post one:

' We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.'

Get it? They want to maintain the requirement for a group. People were doing large swathes of the TFs without groups. They don't want them to do that any more.

They apparently think that a randomly chosen Pool C recipe is a 'good reward' for obliging a whole group to go through the whole TF start to finish.

My contention is that it's NOT a 'good reward', and their logic is thus radically flawed. They've provided the change, and their reasons for it; I'm pointing out the flaw in their reasoning. So, your assertion that this belongs on the Suggestions Forum is incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]


I can't really argue with this statement, because I like the idea of being able to choose your recipe alot. Part of the problem as you stated earlier is the fact that so many useless crap recipes drop from pool C.

I still think that this change was a good idea, but was implemented poorly. It still doesn't need to be rolled back though.




~MR

---

AE Arc: 305214 Blood Diamonds (Villainous)


Unleashed/Unchained/B.O.S.S.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. Reduce the minimum number of players required for a TF or SF to a maximum of six. Only exception: STF and LRSF, since they are meant to be endgame challenges and "hardcore".


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to quickly touch on this (since I'm on the Training Room with the Wedding Event, but reading here too) - most Task Forces and Strike Forces have a requirement of 4. I was looking over documentation on the list of SF/TF.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse, given as other players have stated your information is incorrect, how can we as players have any confidence that this change is a good idea?

Most task forces do not have a requirement of 4. Out of 21 task and strike forces in the game, only seven or 1/3 of the task/strike forces.

If you include the Trials:
The Cavern of Transcendence - 8
Terra Volta (all 3) - 3
Thorn tree trials (all three) - 3
Descent to the Hydra - ? presumed designed for 8 but can be started by one. This one is broken in so many ways it isn't funny.
Prisoners of Eden - 4

So out of 30 Task Forces, Strike Forces, and Trials only half are 4 or less. Not most by any assessment of the term.

Seeing how this change seems to be focusing on Task and Strike Forces, stating 1/3 is "most" is obfuscating the issue.

---

ok, so i've read all 54 pages.

there is some good advice for the devs, if they'll only bother to use some of it.

i agree that if this should remain, that the drop/pick pool seriously needs to be revamped. i love the idea of a pick pool, because i really don't need another snipe recipe.
i did a cap slowie the other day, and got lucky as heck. 7.5
i had people offering 50mil, to which i just giggled no way in heck, you gotta be crazy if you think i'm going to sell you a recipe that's going to be worth triple digits very soon if they don't do something to fix the fix.
and since this "fix" went live, the number of 7.5's has dropped big time. 1 on the market. normally there were 3-6 of them, but i think alot of people jumped on those, and i'm very unhappy i wasn't one of those people.
mind you, this is all red side.

i very rarely play blue side anymore, mainly because i'm done with being a messenger. red side has good missions, and task forces, minus the SG/Coal one. don't get me wrong, it was a fun SF, the one time i've completed it. but i was forced to quit my SG and join another, then ask to be re-invited back to my old one once the SF was completed.
my 2 cents? I think this "fix" WAS to stop cap quickies. period.
I'm sorry that blue side has to suffer for this, but i really don't think it will affect blue side as much as it will red side.

one last note, Please oh please devs, if you happen to glance at my post, Fix the techs. nothing says happy like watching the tech run off asking "where are you guys".

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All this change does is ensure that you comply with what the NPC states, has stated for years, and will continue to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

In real terms, what this change does is introduce a cartload more obligatory work in the hope that you will keep a team of a certain size in order to tackle it.

Increased obligatory work for a mere CHANCE of adequate compensation = very very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. If all the Pool C recipes were created equal, I could see disagreeing with this statement. But seeing as how no one in their right mind can dare say they are, this statement is spot on Lady.

---

Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All this change does is ensure that you comply with what the NPC states, has stated for years, and will continue to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

In real terms, what this change does is introduce a cartload more obligatory work in the hope that you will keep a team of a certain size in order to tackle it.

Increased obligatory work for a mere CHANCE of adequate compensation = very very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. If all the Pool C recipes were created equal, I could see disagreeing with this statement. But seeing as how no one in their right mind can dare say they are, this statement is spot on Lady.

[/ QUOTE ]


Noone is questioning the discrepencies in Pool C, nor is anyone disagreeing that several of the TFs need to be reworked. And most assuredly, noone is arguing against that the number requirements of certain TFs need to be altered.


But those issues are removed from the topic at hand & as I already stated, should be addressed in the Suggestions Forums.

This change is designed to address the exploiting of 'Soft Loading'... Period.

The rewards of a TF, the length of various TFs, and the team size requirements of those TFs should all be addressed elsewhere.

---

[ QUOTE ]
The rewards of a TF, the length of various TFs, and the team size requirements of those TFs should all be addressed elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not!

They are tied so closely to this change that to put this change in place without fixing these issues means that this fix is broken.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rewards of a TF, the length of various TFs, and the team size requirements of those TFs should all be addressed elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not!

They are tied so closely to this change that to put this change in place without fixing these issues means that this fix is broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like sending I11 live with Purples Set Bonuses not working when exemping & not being fixed for 3 months later.... you mean like sending I11 live with the End Mod Sets not working & not being fixed for 3 months later...

etc

etc

etc

etc

etc


This is the nature of the industry. Expect it

---

Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Time to address the original post, I think.

[ QUOTE ]
Such missions have always been intended to be group activities, hence the reason for the minimum group size requirement to start them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many ways to incentivise group activity. The above is a negative way. 'You cannot do this unless you have a group of at least size X.' A positive way would be 'If you have a group of at least size X, the rewards are better' or 'This challenge is so hard that you ought to bring a group of at least size X to deal with it.'

[ QUOTE ]
We feel that the group size requirements are certainly not onerous

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding a group of 8 is one sort of challenge.

SUSTAINING a group of 8 is another kind altogether. People get disconnected, have to go AFK, have issues of all kinds that mean they have to drop out temporarily or permanently.

You really need to look at how minimum team requirements pan out over time as opposed to the start of a mission.

[ QUOTE ]
and that the need for grouping is a good dynamic in a social environment like City of Heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but how do you create that need? Gating content by simply setting a minimum team size on it is about the crudest way to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is the point where I really have to stand up and shout. I've not seen it picked up on yet, so I'm going to pick up on it.

A randomly selected Pool C recipe is NOT a 'good reward based on a group accomplishment'.

Some of the Pool C recipes are worth doing a TF for. Some aren't even worth getting out of bed for. If you are going to nail a mechanic in place that says 'you MUST do a certain amount of work as a group in order to earn the reward' then you have to apply a similar level of consistency to the rewards themselves.

The reason why people soft load the Cap TF and do Speed Katies isn't because they don't like fighting the opposition. It's to minimize time wastage caused by the random reward selection system.

Who in hell wants to do a whole TF just to get a - I have to borrow the delightful phrase - Crap of the Hunter recipe, or a Snipe recipe?

Let me hammer it home again: if you are going to make the challenge consistent, then make the rewards consistent. It's unacceptable to require people to do a set amount of work for a mere CHANCE of worthwhile compensation. Guarantee the worthwhile compensation, and you'll be on firm ground.

So how do you guarantee the worthwhile compensation?

Simple. Let people choose which Pool C recipe they get.

That takes the randomness out of the process. If all TF rewards are SUPPOSED to be of equivalent worth - and if they aren't, then why the hell are you requiring people to do the same amount of work to earn them - then there is no reason to prohibit the player from choosing which one they want. Inconveniencing players is not the same as challenging them.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT and

<3 Sadako

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

---

[ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


*sigh* My point is, as I've been saying all along, is that its probably already being worked on Internally (and probably even apart of I12)

Just because its not immediate, which is what you want, makes it wrong?!? No, just no. If its in the pipes, then its perfectly acceptable.


Now, with that said.... if by I12 we havent heard of alterations being made to TFs... then trust me, I'll be the first one leading the crusade to have them altered Immediately.

But as it stands this minute.... we have to assume that they are well aware & are already taking steps to address these issues. Thus anything we do, say, etc in this regard are purely suggestions.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rewards of a TF, the length of various TFs, and the team size requirements of those TFs should all be addressed elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not!

They are tied so closely to this change that to put this change in place without fixing these issues means that this fix is broken.


[/ QUOTE ]

have to partially agree.

---

Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


*sigh* My point is, as I've been saying all along, is that its probably already being worked on Internally (and probably even apart of I12)

Just because its not immediate, which is what you want, makes it wrong?!? No, just no. If its in the pipes, then its perfectly acceptable.


Now, with that said.... if by I12 we havent heard of alterations being made to TFs... then trust me, I'll be the first one leading the crusade to have them altered Immediately.

But as it stands this minute.... we have to assume that they are well aware & are already taking steps to address these issues. Thus anything we do, say, etc in this regard are purely suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

do not assume.

and further, if we use your logic.

[ QUOTE ]
You mean like sending I11 live with Purples Set Bonuses not working when exemping & not being fixed for 3 months later.... you mean like sending I11 live with the End Mod Sets not working & not being fixed for 3 months later...

etc

etc

etc

etc

etc


This is the nature of the industry. Expect it

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't know it's being worked on, you know nothing. period.

until a red name posts, all you're doing is making speculation saying things like this.

stop.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


*sigh* My point is, as I've been saying all along, is that its probably already being worked on Internally (and probably even apart of I12)

Just because its not immediate, which is what you want, makes it wrong?!? No, just no. If its in the pipes, then its perfectly acceptable.


Now, with that said.... if by I12 we havent heard of alterations being made to TFs... then trust me, I'll be the first one leading the crusade to have them altered Immediately.

But as it stands this minute.... we have to assume that they are well aware & are already taking steps to address these issues. Thus anything we do, say, etc in this regard are purely suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to assume that at all. Since those requests for tf changes were requested a long time ago. I don't assume anything related to changes is in the next immeadieate issue publish. Espcially with what happened with ED and IOs.

---

Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!

[ QUOTE ]
you don't know it's being worked on, you know nothing. period.

until a red name posts, all you're doing is making speculation saying things like this.

stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like the completely baseles speculation that this change will crush the economy & impact the markets so severly that this change has to be reverted?

You mean like that?

Thanks for the laugh

---

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to assume that at all. Since those requests for tf changes were requested a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

We already know that TF changes are in the works. Thats a Red Name stated fact.

---

[ QUOTE ]
We already know that TF changes are in the works. Thats a Red Name stated fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation please?

---

Tremere seems to sit in this thread and try to dissemble any solid remarks and opinions stated by any poster. Just put him on igg and continue on Lady and other's with extremly valid points and good suggestions.

I seriously hate this remark but find it completely appropriate in this case " Don't feed the troll."

Might be one thing if he had a valid point or even evidence and documentation to support his ideals. He doesnt. Every remark is an attempt to derail from the issue at hand.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


*sigh* My point is, as I've been saying all along, is that its probably already being worked on Internally (and probably even apart of I12)

Just because its not immediate, which is what you want, makes it wrong?!? No, just no. If its in the pipes, then its perfectly acceptable.


Now, with that said.... if by I12 we havent heard of alterations being made to TFs... then trust me, I'll be the first one leading the crusade to have them altered Immediately.

But as it stands this minute.... we have to assume that they are well aware & are already taking steps to address these issues. Thus anything we do, say, etc in this regard are purely suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with this. If they had already thought of this, if they were already planning a reworking of TF's, or a "fix" to the current "fix" why would they have pushed out THIS fix if they knew it needed to be fixed AGAIN? That would be even stupider than what they've already done.

---

Ok, now to reply to Lady, altho Tremere has NO clue what he's talking about. Sigh.

Ok. I think to let people choose the EXACT recipe they want would probably not be to good of a thing (the market would all of a sudden be flooded with LotG's, Numina's, and Miracles) I have a slightly different way to rearrange it.

REMOVE the Single-Origin rewards. They're pointless. Replace them with recipe categories. Melee, Ranged, PBAoE, Dam Res, Def, etc..... So even if you get a recipe that doesn't sell for to much, it's still from a set you can use, hopefully.

And also it keeps things partially random so one recipes value on the market doesn't fluctuate to much, hopefully.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lighthouse opened the door to all this by saying:
[ QUOTE ]
We want to continue to offer good rewards based on a group accomplishment through such missions and maintaining that requirement is the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which shows that NCNC understands that this change affects rewards, length, and team size requirements.

The point is why don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]


*sigh* My point is, as I've been saying all along, is that its probably already being worked on Internally (and probably even apart of I12)

[/ QUOTE ]
Given that Lighthouse (personally I think the information given to him was wrong) has provided demonstratedly inaccurate information in this very thread, trust is flowing very thin at the moment.

NCNC is really messing up this week. Given that, why should we trust them to correct this? Even the stated reason (prevent RMT farmers) for this change has been shown to be in error. Even if they did fix things, the chances are that they would mess up those fixes too.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because its not immediate, which is what you want, makes it wrong?!? No, just no. If its in the pipes, then its perfectly acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I, personally, want is NCNC to tell everyone that the concerns in this thread are being looked at. In addition, I want them to acknowledge that the design specs that they are working from are not up to date. Given Lighthouse's comments, I do not think the are.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, with that said.... if by I12 we havent heard of alterations being made to TFs... then trust me, I'll be the first one leading the crusade to have them altered Immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given the lackluster pace that benificial corrections to players have appeared in the past, I don't think you are standing on a firm position here.

[ QUOTE ]
But as it stands this minute.... we have to assume that they are well aware & are already taking steps to address these issues. Thus anything we do, say, etc in this regard are purely suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point point in this post, and it seems to be others' opinion too, is this:

If Lighthouse can not even tell us accurately the requirements to form task forces are, then why the heck should we trust them to fix this properly?

(Edit, punctuation error.)

---